AMD Catalyst 12.4 WHQL

[Lurk]

fyi, Trixx updated version doesn't work (on my system at least).

Tried both the DOS utility and Sapphire's program, and it is clear that the latter does nothing for ULPS no matter what you do with the checkbox.

DOS utility works fine, I can tell because my second GPU shows always active under Overdive tab.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

this doesn't happen. data is sent to one GPU or the other.

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

except he's wrong (as usual). 16 lanes go from PEG slot to GPU, routed by which one is being addressed; both GPU's don't get data concurrently for gaming.

It could be that with current games the (potnetial) performance hit isn't there be sending data to each GPU alternativetively and not concurrently at PCI-e X16 speeds for both GPU's, but sooner or later(years from now), that might not be the case as much more data eventually travels thru it...


Besides, even if we ignore the above, there's always extra latency added by having a bridge chip in the way between the PCI-e controller in the CPU core, and the GPU's themselves, and the issue wouldn't even be a problem if more lanes were added to the PCI-e controlers, rather than limiting them to 40 lanes and that's on the 2011 socket processors...It's even less with socket 1155 wich is not a high end platform to begin with.

[Blín D'ñero]

Originally Posted by shadow001

[...]It's even less with socket 1155 wich is not a high end platform to begin with.

i7 2700K on a Z68 board is high end.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Blín D'ñero

i7 2700K on a Z68 board is high end.

X79 boards and 3930k or 3960k processors are what then?.....I've mentioned it before, but it's one thing i find it funny is that there are people considering 2 and even 3 GPU setups that can cost up to 1500+ dollars, and pairing that up with CPU's and motherboards that cost little over 600$ at most.


And in the end, the socket 1155 platform is still stuck with dual memory channel controlers and not 4 like the X79 boards, and fewer PCI-3.0 lanes from it's processors compared to X79 processors, and always stuck with 4 core processors, so said users have to pray that games never use more than 4 cores now and in the future, and that's a pretty big gamble to make...


Take a 3820 4 core processor that fits on socket 2011, wich costs the same as a high end sandy or ivy bridge, and the difference in cost comes down to the motherboard and 2 extra memory sticks.....I'd pay that small difference for a board that can handle 6 cores and even 8 core processors down the line, should there be games that end up using them eventually, and you just swap processors and that's it, the rest of the hardware stays the same.

[Skinner]

Originally Posted by shadow001

X79 boards and 3930k or 3960k processors are what then?.....I've mentioned it before, but it's one thing i find it funny is that there are people considering 2 and even 3 GPU setups that can cost up to 1500+ dollars, and pairing that up with CPU's and motherboards that cost little over 600$ at most.


And in the end, the socket 1155 platform is still stuck with dual memory channel controlers and not 4 like the X79 boards, and fewer PCI-3.0 lanes from it's processors compared to X79 processors, and always stuck with 4 core processors, so said users have to pray that games never use more than 4 cores now and in the future, and that's a pretty big gamble to make...


Take a 3820 4 core processor that fits on socket 2011, wich costs the same as a high end sandy or ivy bridge, and the difference in cost comes down to the motherboard and 2 extra memory sticks.....I'd pay that small difference for a board that can handle 6 cores and even 8 core processors down the line, should there be games that end up using them eventually, and you just swap processors and that's it, the rest of the hardware stays the same.

They're both high end
I still waiting for a review that shows the difference in multi GPU-systems on newer Sandy's (E) and Ivy's on both X79 and Z68/xx platforms.

The reality today is that yoy should be happy to find a gamengine which proper support four cores. There are a few I believe, who benefit 6?

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Skinner

They're both high end
I still waiting for a review that shows the difference in multi GPU-systems on newer Sandy's (E) and Ivy's on both X79 and Z68/xx platforms.

The reality today is that yoy should be happy to find a gamengine which proper support four cores. There are a few I believe, who benefit 6?

In gaming, there might be the occasional result that favors the X79, like the cvilization physics test, or the physics / combined test in 3Dmark11, but it'll be mainly in video editing, or compressing/ decompressing zip files or professional rendering applications where the extra cores on X79 kick in.


But that's now, and i think it's no secret that if we're taking 150~200$ more, i'd go for the X79 setup since it's more flexible when it comes to long term upgrades, where the extra cores it can handle makes more of an impact in gaming.


Obviously if you're a user that like to change motherboards and processors every year, my point is moot...

[Lurk]

just wanted to point out that performance-wise in Skyrim, the difference between these whql and the beta openCL 1.2 is night and day.

I go from next to unplayable (continuous stutters, especially when turning around) at practically any setting to smooth sailing even with 4xAA+SSAA.

I don't know what they did with the 12.4 whql; while I notice that in Skyrim IQ has noticeably increased (everything is way sharper and defined), performance has gone literally down the drain.
I don't know what the hell is AMD doing.

[Skinner]

Originally Posted by Lurk

just wanted to point out that performance-wise in Skyrim, the difference between these whql and the beta openCL 1.2 is night and day.

I go from next to unplayable (continuous stutters, especially when turning around) at practically any setting to smooth sailing even with 4xAA+SSAA.

I don't know what they did with the 12.4 whql; while I notice that in Skyrim IQ has noticeably increased (everything is way sharper and defined), performance has gone literally down the drain.
I don't know what the hell is AMD doing.

Maybe you need to alt tab too, I have to to get good perf. with 12.4, as if the GPU's are not in 3d mode..

[Lurk]

I alt-tabbed. why the hell I need to even do that, beats me.
Anyway, results from alt-tabbing are nowhere near the performance you get by simply NOT using the 12.4 whql's.

[Besty]

Dear AMD,

Please buy a test rig with 4 x 7970 cards installed with a handful of major games and test your drivers with tri and quad-fire prior to release.

Thankyou.

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by Besty

Dear AMD,

Please buy a test rig with 4 x 7970 cards installed with a handful of major games and test your drivers with tri and quad-fire prior to release.

Thankyou.

LOL! that's so sweet

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Besty

Dear AMD,

Please buy a test rig with 4 x 7970 cards installed with a handful of major games and test your drivers with tri and quad-fire prior to release.

Thankyou.

I'd add a 3 monitor setup to test eyefinity along with those 4 cards while we're at it...If 4 way crossfire is a pain on it's own with a single display, it's a friggin nightmare with 3 monitors and using eyefinity...

[bittermann]

Originally Posted by Besty

Dear AMD,

Please buy a test rig with 4 x 7970 cards installed with a handful of major games and test your drivers with tri and quad-fire prior to release.

Thankyou.

I agree, they should at the very least commit half the driver team to tri/quad crossfire driver fixes because that is where the big money is...

Please get performance improvements/fixes out for single cards first, then maybe dual crossfire cards next...that is all

[shadow001]

The latest cap profile package is posted at guru3D( cap 12.4 set).

[WaltC]

Originally Posted by Dyre Straits

Not exactly sure what 3rd party software is being referenced here.

Me, either... It was just a thought that some other application may have been responsible for putting those files there--as if that was so then a Catalyst uninstaller would leave those files right where they were since it would not be aware they they existed.

I've installed the same driver revisions that you have--including the 11.x's and long before them, even--and the files do not exist in that location in my box. If it was indeed left-overs from some earlier driver revision--then I ought to have them, too. But I don't.

Taken altogether, that looks like a convincing argument for thinking that *some* 3rd-party program--utility program or something else relating to the Catalysts--left them behind when you got rid of whatever program it might have been... It may have been something you installed on a whim and then almost immediately uninstalled, that you simply have forgotten about. Who knows?

At any rate--glad you figured it out!

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by bittermann

I agree, they should at the very least commit half the driver team to tri/quad crossfire driver fixes because that is where the big money is...

Please get performance improvements/fixes out for single cards first, then maybe dual crossfire cards next...that is all

Its big money to the user but it certainly not where the big money is for them.
The multi GPU market is tiny as well as the high end GPU.

[muzz]

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Its big money to the user but it certainly not where the big money is for them.
The multi GPU market is tiny as well as the high end GPU.

Well they hype it likes it's some kinda big thing, yet the people spending the biggest bux get the shaft with the WORST support of all.

I understand that the majority should get the most attention, but the big spenders that have fallen for your sham should get some love too......and they aren't getting much considering their investment.

This isn't hearsay either.

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by muzz

Well they hype it likes it's some kinda big thing, yet the people spending the biggest bux get the shaft with the WORST support of all.

I understand that the majority should get the most attention, but the big spenders that have fallen for your sham should get some love too......and they aren't getting much considering their investment.

This isn't hearsay either.

1)I have been using multi GPU long enough to know what it offers and my expectations are based on understanding with the intrinsic and inherent limitations and the feasibility which to not expect a constant smooth ride, because cost changes nothing of those facts.

2)Both NV and AMD would have to limit PC hardware configurations to a similar Apple like ecosystem, they would have to make there own games engines for all devs to use to ensure full Multi GPU, multi screen, 3D compatibility.

NV and AMD are not magicians who can shoehorn theses features with infallibility into things made by others regardless of how these technologies are advertised and may give the impression of working flawlessly time after time and the fact that point 2) does not exist means i only take it as more performance when possible when its comes to multi GPU and don't blow my top every time a games does not have perfectly working multi GPU support out of the gate or when its simply not possible on my GPUs that cost £1900.

The other fact that NV and AMD are not using the same hardware and some people thank that it does not matter and that only thing stopping a game working as well as on the other hardware is the drivers is something that i don't believe, there will always be games that favour one hardware over the other intentionally or not.

[Blín D'ñero]

Originally Posted by Final8ty

1)I have been using multi GPU long enough to know what it offers and my expectations are based on understanding, intrinsic and inherent limitations and the feasibility which to not expect a constant smooth ride, because cost changes nothing of those facts.

2)Both NV and AMD would have to limit PC hardware configurations to a similar Apple like ecosystem, they would have to make there own games engines for all devs to use to ensure full Multi GPU, multi screen, 3D compatibility.

NV and AMD are not magicians who can shoehorn theses with infallibility into things made by others regardless of how these technology are advertise and may give the impression working flawlessly time after time and the fact that point 2) does not exist means i only take it as more performance when possible when its comes to multi GPU and don't blow my top every time a games does not have perfectly working multi GPU surppport out of the gate or when its simply not possible on my GPUs that cost £1900.

The other fact that NV and AMD are not using the same hardware and some people thank that it does not matter and that only thing stopping a game working as well as on the other hardware is the drivers is something that i don't believe, there will always be games that favour one hardware over the other intentionally or not.

That is a hell of bad grammar, but the points you make, the vision you express, are very good in my opinion.! Great post i say.

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by Blín D'ñero

That is a hell of bad grammar, but the points you make, the vision you express, are very good in my opinion.! Great post i say.

Bad grammar Indeed, im lazy like that.
But i do sympathise with the early adopters as its always much worse.

[Roadhog_]

Originally Posted by Blín D'ñero

That is a hell of bad grammar, but the points you make, the vision you express, are very good in my opinion.! Great post i say.

Your grammar isn't any better.

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by Roadhog_

Your grammar isn't any better.

I'm renowned for it on a few forums, dont take that away from me

[muzz]

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Bad grammar Indeed, im lazy like that.
But i do sympathise with the early adopters as its always much worse.

That would be fine in the BEGINNING, but this garbage has been going on for YEARS.
There is a HUGE difference, whether you want to admit it or not is up to you.

[muzz]

Originally Posted by Final8ty

1)I have been using multi GPU long enough to know what it offers and my expectations are based on understanding with the intrinsic and inherent limitations and the feasibility which to not expect a constant smooth ride, because cost changes nothing of those facts.

2)Both NV and AMD would have to limit PC hardware configurations to a similar Apple like ecosystem, they would have to make there own games engines for all devs to use to ensure full Multi GPU, multi screen, 3D compatibility.

NV and AMD are not magicians who can shoehorn theses features with infallibility into things made by others regardless of how these technologies are advertised and may give the impression of working flawlessly time after time and the fact that point 2) does not exist means i only take it as more performance when possible when its comes to multi GPU and don't blow my top every time a games does not have perfectly working multi GPU support out of the gate or when its simply not possible on my GPUs that cost £1900.

The other fact that NV and AMD are not using the same hardware and some people thank that it does not matter and that only thing stopping a game working as well as on the other hardware is the drivers is something that i don't believe, there will always be games that favour one hardware over the other intentionally or not.

What?

Speak ENGLISH please.

Folks that spend the most should at LEAST expect working hardware, especially when they fall for the biggest hype, whether you are ok with stuff that doesn't work is up to you.
That doesn't make it right no matter what you say.

[noko]

How about CFX on Bulldozer systems, anyone here? I wonder if AMD even has a BD system setup for CFX testing?

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by muzz

What?

Speak ENGLISH please.

Folks that spend the most should at LEAST expect working hardware, especially when they fall for the biggest hype, whether you are ok with stuff that doesn't work is up to you.
That doesn't make it right no matter what you say.

No one said its right, its just reality and the fact of point 2) means that it will always be a problem unless point 2) happens, and it wont and if a person cant live with it or accept that reality then they should not buy into it.

The hardware does work its the software thats the issue and game developers have partial blame for making games that don't work well with Multi screen, 3D and more so multi GPU because Multi GPU has been around long enough that engines and games should be made with multi GPU in consideration from the start.

Its no different than expecting AMD and Intel to have CPU drivers that make everything run on them multi threaded using all the cores no matter how the program/game was coded because people spend big bucks on buying the 6 core 12 thread CPUs.

[Final8ty]

Originally Posted by muzz

That would be fine in the BEGINNING, but this garbage has been going on for YEARS.
There is a HUGE difference, whether you want to admit it or not is up to you.

I know full well how long its been going on for and it likely always will be because people will always have problems learning new tech and how to get the most out of it, people are human not robots.

Even putting these extras aside, games by themselves have a multitude of issues for early adopters of those games even on single cards and patch after patch to fix issues in the games.

Early adopters get hit in nearly everything and end up paying the most and getting the grief.

[SteelWill]

Early adaption of multigpu setups was years ago. What we have now are longstanding and consistent problems.

[Skinner]

Guy's, you may consider 8.97-120418a-137336E-ATI. I run them now and it seems the beste driver here.

[Besty]

Call it what you will, I don't mind if single card users have priority but the situation at present is not sustainable - 5 months and counting for a decent driver which works well for 7970 crossfire owners in all the top games.

What we have at the moment is a situation where 7970 multi-gpu users lack decent, solid functionality in a host of titles which have been out for over six months. Yes the Developers (escpecially in the case of Skyrim) must shoulder some of the blame but this has not affected 680 setups no where near as badly and the 7970 has had a much longer head-start.

The HardOCP 3 GPU 7970 vs 680 review (written less than two weeks ago) needed to use the RC11 driver as Eyefinity is broken. A driver which is four months old. AMD did not seem to know about this as the fix is not even in the 12.5 Beta.

Apart from the crash on stand-by bug, my single 7970 GPU experience is completely different to multi-gpu, no issues at all.

As a 7970 quad-fire owner, I am growing concerned that we may not actually see a decent driver for systems running more than a single 7970 GPU, in the life time of the product.

The Anandtech review of the GTX690 summaries it as follows:

"Unfortunately we’re going to have to put AMD out of the running here; as we’ve seen in games like Crysis and Metro the 7970 in Crossfire has a great deal of potential, but as it stands Crossfire is simply too broken overall to recommend."

So, are AMD ditching 7970 Multi-GPU? They don't seem to be testing their drivers in these configurations and if they are testing them, they are not fixing problems very quickly. As they have been stated as being "out of the running" by one of, if not THE biggest, review site, are they going to be back in the running again and if so when? Not answers I expect from this forum but the questions will need to be answered in the short-term.

I do not agree that the money is not in Multi-GPU configurations, as well as this situation being a PR disaster for AMD, return custom accounts for a high-percentage of sales, I do wonder how many users with multiple 7970's will buy AMD again after this fiasco.